Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Home RSS
 
 
 

New tax comes as no surprise

May 31, 2013

To the editor: A completely new tax from Cape Coral City Council is not a surprise....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

1sandy

Jun-04-13 2:12 PM

@lightswitch: You are correct, the economic melt down began in 2007. What happened next? Over the next 6 years 25% of Cape City employees were eliminated. An employee buy out was had. Many cities across this nation began searching to run their cities on less real estate taxes because the depreciation of appraisals brought in less revenue. So, in the Cape the population stayed about the same, services were cut back, employees of course gave back money via pension reform & got no raises, and why not, they should be so grateful for even having a job. And then, something nefarious happened on the way to budget balancing. King, Sullivan and the rest of the evil cabal continued using infrastructure funds to balance the books. City roads, vehicles & equipment were practically ignored. That is why we now need a PST and a Fire Assessment tax. To pay for all the things the RAGs ignored. You see LS, just saying NO to everything doesn't always work. ALL ON SULLIVAN'S WATCH!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-04-13 10:21 AM

Look you win! What I know would not change your mind. You refuse to use your mind to think back now 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 year ago.

In 2007 I will for the last time remind you the city began its national and city melt down. Sullivan was elected after this city was well into its unemploment decline of better than 13% unemployed. Homes were being foreclosed on at a rate per month of about 1 for every 50. If you hadn't been employed by the city you probably would not be posting here now.

There was not even part time work to be had if people wanted a 2nd or 3rd job to pay for a restart on the UEP.

But I understand how a city personnel paid individual would be so disconnected from what occurs outside their spoon fed pablum world.

Why all you have to do to understand it is to attend or record a city council meeting.

So have a wonderful day and make the decision of where should I go to lunch today!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1sandy

Jun-04-13 10:03 AM

@lightswitch: Mayor Sullivan orchestrated the stoppage of the UEP with his phony banter about MWH being corrupt. LS, ask him where the scandal is on MWH. I'll tell you where it is, it is in his head. Where are the lawsuites, indictments, arrests? NO WHERE! Bwahahahaha! He continues to this very day to vote against the rate payers, by voting against the UEP. It is time for all who have City water & sewer to send him a message this election year. Mayor Sullivan is the reason that water rates continue to climb. And that can't be refuted.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

expatinasia

Jun-04-13 6:38 AM

"If my figure of building permits is wrong you just made my case even more correct becaise the number of years will be even further out. "

Lightswitch, you should change your password, because someone has taken control of your account, and is posting nonsense.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KirstenThompson

Jun-03-13 5:56 PM

7500, LS, not 750. Over seven thousand five hundred single family residential permits issued in the busiest year (2005), plus multi family and commercial. Where are you getting your figure of 1,100?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-03-13 11:08 AM

If my figure of building permits is wrong you just made my case even more correct becaise the number of years will be even further out. So thank you for helping me to confirm my point on building infrastructure. Your figure of 750 people living in those 750 homes would be about 1125 per year.

That would put build out at 365 years if the 750 residential building permit could be met every single year for 365 years.

That year would be 2378.

So thank you again! By the way do you think the city can hit thhe 750 building permits every year from 2013 to 2378?

I know the city can't.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

onlythetruth

Jun-03-13 7:38 AM

Wrong again Switchy, (you're making this a habit). 2005 Cape Coral building permits 7500+. Do you ever provide factual information in your arguments?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-03-13 3:16 AM

You will remember the McGrail, McClain, Donnell, push for a $60,000 cap.

The likely hood MWH was guilty not clear but why are they involved in so many litigation procedures around the country?

I guess we have only ourselves to blame insufficient quality of staff during and including the Chuck Pavlos years. Hey it was the city management in Utilities over seeing this project during the Mayor Burche regime. Hey and it was Burche's own company who benefited from doing some of the design work. He only garnered the opportunity to SELL the business in the end. So it was our dumb fault for letting him be the mayor, give his input to city staff and try to supervise with personnel that were more than questionable at best.

This aside I am still waiting to hear why 1,100 change orders were made on the North water plant which was not Sullivan's term of office.

Why don't you tell us?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-03-13 2:56 AM

Kristen the biggest number of permits the city had was 1,100. So take that # or a lower number multiply it times 2.5 the national average of people per home in the nation or 1.1 which is the Capes average per household. If we have 157000 people and the buildout is touted as 430,000 that is 273,000 people. It works out to if the city could have the 1,100 every year which it can't and won't. You dio the math and tell us how many years to build out?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-03-13 2:47 AM

Sandy wrong again.

Mayor Fiecthaler 10% increase

Mayor Burche 10% increase

Not until the Slick Six were voted in by the city unions we received another 10%

If you care to remember before Sullivan ever stated he was running. During the Burche regime we were told we would have a 82% increase over 5 years.

That is one of the reasons Sullivan won by a 63% margin. HE DID KEEP HIS WORD ON REDUCING THE RATES.

He told us there would be increases but not to the tune of 82%.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1sandy

Jun-02-13 5:59 PM

@lightswitch: Remeber rate payers, the one reason and the only reason you rate payers are paying higher water bills is that the current Mayor John Sullivan orchestrated the stoppage of the UEP and when he became Mayor used his vote & influence to keep the UEP from ever starting up, using the LIE "that it is not the right time" when labor and materials have never been cheaper. If John Sullivan gets re-elected Mayor and 3 RAGs get elected as Council members the UEP may get stopped again and you rate payers may see a 50 percent increase in your water bills, and you can take that to the bank.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KirstenThompson

Jun-02-13 3:50 PM

LS, once again, I'm not sure where you are getting your data. You stated, "if the city hits it biggest year of building permits about 1,100 every year". Where did you get 1,100? In 2005, 7,679 single family home permits were issued. That doesn't include multi family or commercial new construction permits.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-02-13 10:26 AM

Edward 44 not all of the people that live here are going to take your advise about figuratively going to be the city's punching bag. As to mixing anyone here with the bit about the metal detectors that is not correct and you know you use it to sensationalize your argument. Which many do from time to time. "You are the reason we walk through metal detectors."

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-02-13 10:15 AM

The $13.1 you talk about to pay for the land was taken from the WATER & SEWER FUND!

How did that money get into that fund? THE CURRENT RATEPAYERS!

Do you think the money could have been returned to those rate payers in REDUCED rates instead of the 10% increase we were given about a year ago?

Of course not and like these other taxes like the Utility Tax, and the proposed *done deal) Fire Assessment TAX. They won't be coming down now, next years or future years!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-01-13 10:52 PM

It should be noted Sandy1 rented a $1 movie at red box and remembered a line! Good Sandy1 next week you can rent McGrail's favorite Moby Dick! I do not believe he read the book!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Jun-01-13 10:49 PM

If the city hits it biggest year of building permits about 1,100 every year until buildout it will take 375 years to accomplish that feat. Who thinks 1,100 permits every year for 375 years is remotely possible? Good thing we bought the land for 13.1 million. Lets put all the infrastructure in immediately and test how long it will take for it to erode in 350 years before the build out!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johngalt

Jun-01-13 5:34 PM

Back up the bus; we bought the 652 acres because it was “on sale”? Because we might need it someday in the future and eminent domain is too costly or cumbersome and we really didn’t need the property tax from the parcels anyway and the $13 million was locked-up in a strong box that wise men couldn’t get at so they turned it into land that they later sell for a profit for the taxpayers who’ll never see a dime because it’ll be put back into another scheme? Right? This sounds like a Jackie Mason schtick…

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1sandy

Jun-01-13 3:18 PM

@JohnSull: Mayor, you want the truth, you want the truth,YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Where were you when infrastructure money was being used to balance the budget? Why did you let expensive bio-solids equipment sit for years until the "new" Council put it out up for sale? Why did you stick it to the rate payers and not restart the UEP? Where are the results of that phony baloney audit that you orchestrated to get MWH that cost Cape taxpayers thousands of dollars? Why did you hire a person that had NO City Management experience to manage the Cape? And that lawsuit that you filed against the Cape, why weren't taxpayers compensated by you for the costs to defend that lawsuit when you bailed on it?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CapeCoralCuestions

Jun-01-13 12:10 PM

Intelligent people see right through RAGs lies. It is extremely insulting that RAGs think people don’t understand what is going on in this city. The $13 mill you pess and moan about cannot be used in the general fund and you all know it. You all know that eminent domain is a costly, lengthy process, but you think that is a better option than buying forclosed land at auction for a fraction of its value. Right. RAGs deliberately set out to destroy our city. BY Lightswitch: “If it takes dismantling this city government so be it. However if and when the prices of real estate return to a level I AM SATISFIED WITH I'll leave in a New York second and so will many others. The largest land mass with drainage ditches more than they have in Venice does not make QUALITY OF LIFE. Keep providing the burrowing owl in the area that looks like the steppe lands of Africa 1st class services and I'll get to see the County take over the governance here, and stay!" VOTE OUT SULLIVAN AND LEEST!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CapeCoralCuestions

Jun-01-13 12:05 PM

Elia, you are too uneducated and crass to have written your letter yourself. It is very like the recent letters from Rosko, Brand, Dillie. Clearly RAGs have a bullet list and you guys are vomiting it back out as ordered. There are 8 people on the council but you and RAGS single out McGrail as though he alone were responsible for all your complaints. I don’t know why you are complaining in the first place. You live in the low rent district and your business is in North Fort Myers! Sullivan and Leest are part of the RAG group that caused all the infrastructure problems--they are up for re-election. VOTE THEM OUT!!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johngalt

Jun-01-13 10:34 AM

A public entity that collects the bulk of its revenue from private property tax would be hard pressed to explain why they would want to acquire excess land from private holders. Does this not decrease their revenue? Why might they decide to do so? Future public works/park expansion? No, they have the eminent domain laws for that. Land speculation? Not part of their charter. Corruption, cronyism, most likely, more subtle though. Perhaps future resale with multiple strings attached? (big $ development fees),or perhaps a future resale to selected (connected) parties? Grandiose fascist projects like stadiums, etc. No doubt. How about we give a ½ acre to each public union employee in lieu of their retirement? Seems like a win win!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johngalt

Jun-01-13 8:32 AM

A back of the envelope calculation regarding property tax loss (not collected) on the 651 acre land purchase reveals about $2.1 million hole as a result of city ownership. Some of the property purchased from Theiman Enterprises LLC was taxed as low as $342 per acre in 2010 and as high as $13,503 per acre. Bear in mind that this is not a single year event, as none of the land has yet been resold and may take many more years to happen. And, when it is finally sold, at what price? Lets’ say it takes 10 years to dispose of it, and we’ll assume the same property tax loss for each those 10 years, that’s $21 million…hum, that number seems strangely familiar?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bobbie

Jun-01-13 12:56 AM

Oh, Tony, I forgot. Let me bang my shoe on the table. NYET! NYET!! NYET!!! That's for Dimbulb.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bobbie

Jun-01-13 12:53 AM

Tony Elia, hadn't seen or heard from you for so long, thought the Cape had lucked out and you had moved. Darn! First, the land they purchased is worth a lot more than they paid for it. It was certainly purchased legally! Oh, and you made a big point of mentioning that it was vacant land. Of course it was. Would you have preferred it to be built upon? You make little sense! And when Lightswitch comments on your letter it gets even more muddled. What a team!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

May-31-13 9:11 PM

My contacts in Washington D.C. say nyet.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web